Saturday 27 June 2020

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

27 June  2020

Rajapaksa reversing Rajapaksa pardon

I believe that when one is genuinely seeking, truth surfaces truth.

To my mind, the CID’s investigations into former Rebel leader Karuna Amman seem to be an attempt to ‘show’ the gullible that they are doing something. If they are acting as per the law – they ought to have investigated him when he came into the open. But back then he was protected by the Rajapaksas. Did the politicians have the mandate of the People to erase wrongs by conversion to politics? The then President had the power to pardon as per Article 34 of the Sri Lankan Constitution.  Yet the then government failed to demonstrate such a process. Instead, the Ruling party’s candidate is reported to have stated as follows:

[Colombo (News 1st); Karuna Amman received legal pardon when he defected from the LTTE to support the government of Sri Lanka in the war against terrorism and it is similar to one becoming a crown witness, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna candidate S. B. Dissanayake said on Monday.
“Karuna Amman was the LTTE’s former leader for the East and, he defected with a strong force to join hands with the Sri Lankan Army”, Dissanayake said adding that Karuna Amman’s defection was instrumental to secure victory in the northern battle.
On Friday, the 19th of June, Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan alias Karuna Amman, the Leader of the Tamil United Freedom Front also known as “Karuna Amman” said he killed 2000 to 3000 Sri Lankan soldiers in one night at Elephant Pass when in the LTTE, as opposed to the number of lives claimed by COVID-19 in Sri Lanka and said “Karuna Amman is dangerous than the Corona Virus”.] News First

The policy as per the above reasoning would be – a criminal who switches political  loyalty to the party in government – is pardoned. Article 34(3) provides as follows:
[34 (3) When any offence has been committed for which the offender may be tried within the Republic of Sri Lanka, the President may grant a pardon to any accomplice in such offence who shall give such information as shall lead to the conviction of the principal offender or of any one of such principal offenders, if more than one. ]

This appears to be the essence of Mr Dissanayake’s interpretation. If that is the case, we do not need written secular laws but be driven by belief based decisions as interpreted by the elected leader.
As per the above article – Karuna was free to express as he did. The CID by questioning Karuna have negated that effective pardon by the then President. What a circus??

No comments:

Post a Comment